There’s a reason why Donald Trump called her “Crooked Hillary”….
And there’s also a reason why it stuck!
If you’ve been following the Judicial Watch / Tom Fitton lawsuits against Hillary Clinton, you know that Tom Fitton (as a private citizen) has been doing more heavy lifting for justice than Jeff Sessions did during his entire term as Attorney General!
Fitton is an American hero, and doesn’t get nearly enough credit.
And he’s at it again, not letting Hillary off the hook.
He literally forced her to answer questions in Federal Court on Friday, and her answers were laughable!
They also, arguably, admitted to committing a federal felony.
Take a look:
The Gateway Pundit explained more:
On Friday morning Hillary Clinton responded to a court order forced by Judicial Watch to answer more questions about the setting up of her private server.
Judicial Watch appeared in a DC federal court last month on a motion to compel more testimony from Hillary Clinton as well as to make public video recordings of depositions of top Clinton aides such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
The court ruled that Hillary Clinton must answer more questions about the setting up of her private server under oath.
As expected, Hillary Clinton responded to the court order with her usual arrogance — she said she set up the server for “convenience,” and had “no role” in the process setting up the server.
Clinton also played stupid and said she knows nothing about the equipment, how it was created or who else had accounts on the system.
Via Judicial Watch:
The court ordered Clinton to “[D]escribe the creation of the clintonemail.com domain name and the decision to set the domain up on the existing server, the date it was decided to create the domain and set it up on the existing server, who made those decisions, and when the domain became operational
on the existing server.” Clinton answered under oath:
Subject to and without waiving the forgoing objections, Secretary Clinton answers as follows: As Secretary Clinton prepared in late 2008/early 2009 to serve as Secretary of State, she was aware that President Clinton’s office had set up an e-mail system, but she had no role in this process. Secretary Clinton knew that President Clinton’s staff had recently upgraded that system. Secretary Clinton does not know what equipment that system used, how it was created, who decided that the system needed to be upgraded, or who else had accounts on the system. Secretary Clinton believes that one of the President’s aides, Justin Cooper, set up the system. Secretary Clinton decided to use a clintonemail.com account on the system for the purpose of convenience. Secretary Clinton recalls that the clintonemail.com account was created in early 2009. Although Secretary Clinton does not have specific knowledge of the details of the creation of the account, the “domain,” or the “domain name,” her best understanding is that Mr. Cooper set it up.
This answer is unacceptable, says JW President Tom Fitton.
Thanks to Judicial Watch, the American public was made aware of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Hillary Clinton conducted official business on a non government server so she could hide her Clinton Foundation pay-to-play while she was head of the Department of State.
Bill Clinton received nearly $50 million for speeches while his wife Hillary was the head of the Department of State.
Countless classified emails were discovered on Hillary’s private server, a server we know was compromised, yet she still has not been indicted.
We also liked this piece from the National Review:
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.
Our Biggest Sale of the Year:
For a limited time.